Supreme Court Weighs Mail-In Ballot Deadline, Potential Impact on 2026 Elections
WASHINGTON — Californians may need to mail their ballots well before election day to ensure they are counted, following arguments before the Supreme Court on Monday regarding the deadline for receiving mail-in ballots.
The court’s conservative justices appeared poised to rule that federal law requires ballots to be received by election day to be considered valid. This decision could significantly impact states with extended ballot receipt deadlines.
Historical Context and Constitutional Authority
Congress established a national election day in early November in the 19th century, but left the specifics of ballot counting to individual states, consistent with the Constitution’s provision granting states the authority over the “times, places and manners for holding elections.”
Currently, California and 13 other states count mail-in ballots postmarked by election day, even if they arrive several days late. Most states also accommodate late-arriving ballots from overseas military personnel.
California currently counts ballots postmarked by election day that arrive within seven days. In 2024, over 406,000 such late-arriving ballots were counted in California, representing approximately 2.5% of the total.
Washington, Oregon, Nevada, and Alaska also have provisions for counting late-arriving mail ballots.
Political Motivations and Recent Cases
The case arrives amidst heightened political scrutiny of mail-in voting. President Trump has repeatedly claimed, without evidence, that voting by mail leads to fraud, a claim widely disputed by election experts. The Republican National Committee has actively pursued challenges to mail-in voting practices.
The current case, Watson vs. Republican National Committee, originated from a challenge to Mississippi’s law allowing ballots to arrive up to five days after election day. The Supreme Court had previously allowed Texas’ Republican-friendly map to be used in 2026, despite a lower-court ruling that it likely discriminated on the basis of race. Watson vs. Republican National Committee
President Trump has expressed a desire to “nationalize” elections and require voters to provide proof of U.S. Citizenship, though his authority to do so is limited.
Justices’ Concerns and Arguments
During oral arguments, several conservative justices voiced concerns about potential fraud and the integrity of the election process.
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch questioned the possibility of voters changing their votes after election day. Mississippi’s solicitor general, Scott G. Stewart, stated that such “recalls” of votes are not permitted under state law.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. Expressed concern that extending the election period beyond election day could undermine confidence in the results, stating, “We don’t have election day anymore. We have election month or we have election months.” He cited no specific examples to support this claim.
Justices aligned with the Democratic appointees argued for judicial restraint, emphasizing that the Constitution grants states and Congress the authority to regulate elections. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pointed out that Congress has historically revised election laws while acknowledging states’ varying ballot receipt deadlines, suggesting the court should defer to legislative authority.
Lower Court Rulings and Current Status
A district judge initially rejected the challenge to Mississippi’s election law, but a panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, comprised of three Trump appointees, ruled that ballots must be received by election day to be valid.
State Divisions
The dispute largely falls along party lines, with Democratic states like New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, and California generally favoring the counting of all valid ballots, while Republican-led states advocate for stricter deadlines to prevent potential fraud.
While California has faced criticism for the time it takes to count all votes, this issue was not central to the arguments before the Supreme Court.